In Defense of Rutgers

In Defense of Rutgers

I was listening to WFAN the other morning and there you had Boomer Esiason, a former star QB for the Bengals and the Jets, talking about how even though New York (New Jersey, really) has two first-place football teams, you wouldn't know it based on the media coverage.

There's something about this area that makes us supremely cynical and pessimistic, even when things are going well.

But this is not the case with Rutgers and, specifically, Rutgers football -- the Scarlet Knights. New Jersey has rallied behind the football team of the State University of New Jersey. New Jersey was, in fact, crying out for a good football program. Something we can hang our hats on when we say why we're proud to be New Jerseyans.

Now on gameday, there's unity and pride for school and sport. Undergrads, grads, and alumni are interacting in ways they never did.

But the Star-Ledger and some in the New Jersey Legislature are not having any of it. They point to impropriety, they point to scandal and corruption, they point to misappropriation of funds, and their arguments are weak at best, and destructive at worst.

Today, a group of dedicated fans, alumni, faculty, and staff, launched an information campaign to basically set the record straight about Rutgers. That group, assembled through Internet message boards and a Facebook group called I Got Rutgers' Back, of which the Bowie of Suburbia is a member.

The group, which organized only three weeks ago and raised upwards of $10,000 from over 200 individual donors in that time, is an indication of the hunger for a successful RU, both athletically and academically. But with RU's increased success, particularly since the Scarlet Knight's first bowl game in 2005 and now-fired RU Athletic Director and Political Fallguy Bob Mulcahy, the school and the athletic have fallen under increased scrutiny from the Ledger. And it ain't been good.

The group takes specific aim at the Ledger for a December 7 report, "Rutgers Football: A Game of Secrets", which claims that:

In the past five years, as Rutgers hiked tuition, eliminated six other varsity sports and canceled classes to cut costs, the university more than doubled annual spending on football, from $7.5 million to $15.6 million.

The obvious implication here is that is that money was moved from other areas to fund football, and that's patently untrue. The subsidy that RU actually provides football is less than it was five years ago, when the Knights went 4-7 in 2004. Increased spending has been offset 100% by increased revenue stemming from, what else? Increased quality of the Rutgers football program.

Further, the Star-Ledger distorted the findings of an Athletics Review Committee, heavily suggested impropriety in the November 20 report, "Report Says Rutgers Failed To Properly Oversee Athletics Department":

The Rutgers athletic department was allowed to become a virtually independent operation within the school - bending rules, answering to no one and spending freely.

That's the LEDE! If you were reading this with no prior knowledge, you would immediately conclude that this is a corrupt, back-room dealing, club. Only paragraphs later, the article acknowledges that the report found Mulcahy was not involved in any "wrongdoing," but that the University, in an accelerated attempt to improve the football program, moved too quickly and that oversight was lost. That's a legitimate gripe, but fortunately, that lack of oversight did not result in corruption, scandal, or mismanaged. In fact, the Athletics Review Committee audit found the program to be transparent, well run, and was producing dividends.

The report does call for:

• Establish a director of compliance/ethics
• Signatory authority for contracts
• Review and approval of sponsorship agreement policies and practices
• Review and approval of high-level employment contracts

Like I Got Rutgers' Back says "Athletics could have done bad things and nobody would have caught them, but fortunately they actually did great things."

Other areas of concern related to the Star-Ledger coverage included Coach Greg Schiano's alleged contract stipulation that offered an "out" if the stadium expansion were not completed (not true), and a Schiano salary subsidy from Nelligan, the school's sports marketing agency that was labeled as a "secret side deal." This kind of contract arrangement is so common in collegiate athletics.

The Ledger also characterizes the Rutgers Stadium expansion as mismanaged, and that bonds couldn't be sold as a result. Any superficial examination of large-scale development projects in the current economy -- institutional, medical, corporate, or otherwise -- would show just how difficult it is to get a project completed. But with all of that said, the first phase of the project was completed on time and on budget, the second phase as been scaled back in an acknowledgment of the economy, but will still provide increase revenue generators in the 11,500 additional seats

Star-Ledger should have known better, or if they did, they chose to avoid it, cynically looking for scandal.

Edison, NJ: A Lot of Dough for A Little Talk

For those of you who don't know, Edison, NJ, named after the esteemed inventor, is the fifth-largest municipality in the state with a population of roughly 100,000. It's a huge, sprawling expanse of a township, composed historically of pieces of older townships. As most things in New Jersey, it used to be miles of rolling hills and farmland and now it's mostly built out. There is no central downtown (an unincorporated section of Edison known as Clara Barton, comes close, but offers little in the way of a vibrant downtown), you can only drive from here to get there.

That said, Edison is a desirable place to live for its schools, proximity to transit and New York City, budding Indian population, and family-oriented communities.

Oh, and there was recently a revolution in local government there.

A Wha??!! Yes, a revolution. It was a big deal. Edison, along with New Brunswick and Perth Amboy, was one of a dying few localities in NJ's Middlesex County that was still run by an entrenched and corrupt Democratic machine. In 2005, Democrat Jun Choi, a former senior official at the state's Department of Education, beat Democrat George Spadoro -- a long-time mayor who was part of his party's political machine -- in the Democratic primary. It was huge. Two years later, Choi (who, at 34, was the youngest mayor ever to be elected in Edison) campaigned successfully to get elected his own slate of change candidates to Township Council.

Challenges abounded in Edison, from a campaign to build a new high school to how to redevelop a massive expanse along U.S. Route 1 that was the site to the local Ford plant. There was, and still is, promise in Edison under Choi's progressive leadership. Choi was among the first New Jersey officials to support President-elect Barack Obama, while most of NJ's old-guard Democrats fawned over Hillary Clinton (Clinton won NJ handily in the presidential primary), and set a bold agenda for the township.

There have been hiccups along the way, though. In summer 2006, an incident between an Indian man and the police set off a high level of racial tension. Choi sided with the police, though called for an investigation of the officer (who was later cleared) and was criticized for it. The PBA president called for Choi's resignation, but that call was largely dismissed by newspapers and residents alike as part of the "old Edison guard." One local paper actually called for the PBA president's resignation because of his actions

And while Choi has taken bold stances, he comes off as arrogant often times, in curt responses to questions over his style of governance, and the choices he makes in the name of progress. A local paper, The Home News Tribune, reports that the township's communications director, hired in 2006 with a handsome $65K yearly salary has enjoyed a 38 percent salary increase and now makes $90K a year -- an exorbitantly high wage for someone in the communications field that only oversees an assistant, and not a whole department.

In a time when the average Edison homeowner pays roughly $6,500 a year in taxes and New Jersey localities are under pressure to build state-mandated affordable housing, and are limited to only 4 percent annual budget increases as the Legislature lamely tries to address the state's misguided property tax system, Choi, a reformer in his own right, needs to make sure this doesn't happen. Further, he needs to steer clear of arrogantly defending it.

Hell, I'm an experienced editor. I will happily take that job for a mere $70K/year. Mayor Choi -- are you listening? While I'm not a resident, I live right near Edison.

Food Banks: Another NEO Casualty?

Last week, when a prominent and long-standing central New Jersey soup kitchen went to the newspapers as a last resort to inform the public that demand was up, donations were down, and that it would have to cut back on meals, the immediate response was overwhelming. Donations, totaling upwards of $7,000 poured in almost instantly, the full meal service was restored, and there was a happy ending just in time for the pre-Thanksgiving headlines. The support was touted as a “Thanksgiving Miracle.”

But what happens to places like Elijah’s Promise—that central Jersey soup kitchen—when it’s March, or August, or any other time when holiday spirit cannot be tapped? It’s just another characteristic of this New Economic Order. Americans are spending less, and have less disposable income. At the same time, not-for-profit organizations like Elijah’s Promise, face the daunting challenge of carrying out its mission with fewer dollars and more demand.

Of course, it goes without saying that this is not an isolated incident. While foundation support for nonprofits has yet to take a major toll, there is the looming threat of a sustained decline in charitable giving, putting the hurt on nonprofits everywhere.

Whereas not-for-profit services might decline with diminished funding, the demand for food banks increases in tough economic times. AP reports:

The Greater Chicago Food Depository, the city’s food bank, has seen a 33 percent increase in food pantry demand from July to September of 2008, compared to the same period last year, said spokesman Bob Dolgan, “Our network is strained right now,” Dolgan said. “Our most successful pantries … are having to turn people away.”

And to make matters even worse, those who were donors or volunteers at food banks in years past are now clients. Food, sadly, is one of the first “luxuries” to go—before gas and electricity, according to Paul Ash, the executive director of the San Francisco Food Bank, who appeared Wednesday on PBS’ NewsHour. Last year, his organization distributed more than 27 million pounds of food.

Ash explains:

Well, it bites worst at the end of the pay period, so just depending on how someone is paid. We always see more people showing up to a pantry if the distribution is in the last few days of the month, or the, you know, 13th, 14th, 15th of the month, just before someone can expect their paycheck.

Food is the one thing that you can just parse out your dollars very, very slowly. And so that’s why you end up running out of food toward the end of the middle of the month.

The other penalty there is you don’t buy the giant economy size. You have to buy the small size, so your dollar doesn’t go as far. So there;s a lot of penalties to living paycheck-to-paycheck and trying to stretch your dollars out for food.

The food stamps program, and other federal nutrition programs do not limit the number of participants, those programs do not offer sufficient support to feed a family for a month. As a result, more strain is placed on food banks, which suffer from falling donations.

No Choice But to Age In Place

Aging in place for some is the ultimate ideal. Elderly individuals, with their faculties in tact, and who are physically sound, stay in the houses where they raised their families, and remain in the communities where they have roots, paid taxes, and have an historic reference.

A community with a sound housing policy would ideally provide low- and moderate-income housing for aging seniors so that they can downsize, while remaining in their community. For residents of greater means, market rate senior housing, replete with wide doorways, limited services, and near town amenities is, or should, be an option.

But with the New York Times Saturday reporting that aging in place might, in fact, be a burden, this whole ideal is going out the window.

Welcome to the new economic order. With every passing day, as housing values plummet and the level of unsold houses approaches a one-year extent. Older Americans can no longer sell their houses to downsize—never mind downsizing within their own communities. They can’t downsize anywhere, presenting a potentially frightening prospect for people—stuck in their homes.

According to The Times:

Facilities that have watched their waiting lists wither and their occupancy rates fall in the last year are now scrambling to bring people through their doors. Some assisted-living centers have called in real estate agents to teach prospective residents about online advertising and how to clean and preen their homes for showings. Others have set up programs with banks to provide bridge loans to homeowners, or are discounting apartments and offering low-interest loans.

“It is part of the hidden problem of the recession,” said Larry Minnix, president of the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging.

Talk about aging in place. But in these cases, it’s not by choice.

Bag Here, Bag Now

In Amsterdam, at a Super de Boer, imagine my surprise when I had to pay for a grocery bag because I didn’t bring my own. In the U.S., I buy those biodegradable poop bags for my dog, so I don’t need the plastic grocery bags. I bring canvas to the store, etc. Yeah, I try to be “green” when I can. I think more and more people these days do.

But when I left the Super de Boer, I was amazed. I don’t live in an area, or a state, for that matter, that would employ such a progressive-minded initiative. I do know that New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg has been on a lengthy campaign to get people to recycle their plastic grocery bags, or bring their own from home, but like Europe, in an ever-shrewd way to use taxes (or fees, in this case) for the public good, Bloomberg is now proposing a bag fee. Joe Biden, eat your heart out—now here’s a tax that we can feel patriotic about.

According to The New York Times:

City officials estimate that the fee could generate $16 million a year, a figure that Mr. Bloomberg would no doubt appreciate, given the lingering and concussive effects of the global economic crisis on the citys economy.

The article continues:

If the proposal passes, New York City would follow the lead of many European countries and become one of the first places in the United States to assess a so-called plastic bag tax.

It’s a fantastic plan, and every city should engage in such bold plans, but does it go far enough? In New York City, cigarettes approach $8 per pack, and guess what? Smoking is way down. A study by the city’s health department in 2007 indicated a 20-percent decline in smoking since 2002. Why? A combination of strategic advertising, a smoking ban in public places like bars and restaurants, and that cig tax were all attributed to that decline.

New York City, in 2006, also banned artery-clogging artificial trans fats at all restaurants. Why? Because public health is in the utmost interest of any government (and not just public health that keeps a locality from getting sued, like bad sidewalks, etc.)

So what’s my point? There are always going to be the “keep your laws off my trans fat” people, but isn’t one of the roles of government to protect the citizenry, from both exogenous and endogenous forces? I think so. And here’s the other thing: the city’s real intent is to not make money from this fee. The intent is environmental: people would stop using plastic bags, and any subsequent revenue from a bag fee would dry up. Further, $16 million is a mere whiff of New York City’s $50 billion municipal budget. This ain’t about more money to line the pockets of the folks at City Hall.

But it’s always baby steps with these laws. The cig tax was slow to increase; no one noticed a flavor difference when their food lacked trans fats; and, alas, the bag tax is too small, and needs to hit the consumer. We’ve squandered three decades of environmental warnings, and these are issues our local governments can control. Just like implementing aggressive recycling plans, plastic grocery bags are things of the past we need our local governments to help to drive home that message.

The Times article notes that following Ireland’s implementing its 33-cent bag tax in 2002, plastic bag use dropped by 94 percent. Ninety-four percent. Now that’s the stuff!

The article quotes local grocery store owners saying that customers would be outraged by paying for bags. Perhaps, but how long would it take for a customer to start bringing a bag? Once? Twice? It wouldn’t take long.

We don’t have long. Bag here, bag now.

NJ Needs an Affordable Housing Tax. Period.

At least we’re talking about an affordable housing mandate (even if that talk is in its third decade).

OK, now that’s out of the way, the affordable-housing-as-mandate discussion in New Jersey is a mess.

In June, when the governor here signed into law a bill that would eliminate Regional Contribution Agreements—a tool used by some towns to wire funds covering their affordable housing obligations to nearby, typically poorer, urban, areas—it was viewed as a triumph by housing advocates because of its anticipated impact on helping to reintegrate neighborhoods, staving off so-called golden ghettos, and providing housing for lower-income residents in even the wealthiest of communities.

The Legislature also passed a measure that would levy a 2.5 percent fee on the assessed value for non-residential construction or improvements. Opponents say that fee is far too small, covering only a portion of a construction project’s affordable housing requirement, leaving the town to cover the rest of the cost.

So the state, with its 566 towns, could not fully come to terms. That’s why the New Jersey State League of Municipalities is challenging the bills, along with some 230 towns that have joined the fight. Conventional wisdom mostly said that any regulations put forth by the state’s Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) would be amended, but implemented at some point, but it now appears we could be sent back to the drawing board.

On September 15, The Star-Ledger reported that one town’s challenge—Medford Township—would challenge COAH’s rules with the state’s Council on Local Mandates—a powerful state agency whose rulings cannot be overturned by state courts. Medford’s Republican Mayor (yes, this is largely a partisan issue—he is running for state senate) and the township says COAH’s regulations could cost towns roughly $6 million statewide and then cites a 1995 amendment to the state constitution that bans certain unfunded state mandates, the Ledger reports.

This is more than a legal dance—it’s tactical maneuvering that could successfully curtail the implementation of sound affordable housing policy in a state the desperately needs it. While it’s unclear how the Local Mandates council will rule, one thing is clear: the Legislature needs to step it up a notch by:

• Creating a value-added tax, like a gas tax that would be used strictly for infrastructure. Gov. Jon Corzine is still pushing his asset monetization plan that would increase toll costs on some of the state’s busiest thoroughfares, but that’s largely a regressive tax for those commuters who have to drive long distances.
  
• We need to move away from the property-tax-based funding for social mandates that benefit everyone (yes, even you there, living on the horse farm in bucolic northwest New Jersey). The implementation of an affordable housing policy that works and is reasonable can be funded by more than just property owners.
  
• The developer’s fee—the aforementioned 2.5 percent fee—and the municipal mandate system of funding affordable housing is ludicrous. This is important because it could very well thwart all economic growth in New Jersey with ratable-generating enterprise moving over to places like Pennsylvania (no offense, Pennsylvania—I’m there often—great commonwealth. We love ya’.)
  

It’s encouraging that the state legislature here understands the importance of providing affordable housing, but after decades of wrangling, we need to think clearly here, and do what’s got to be done.

The GOParadox

Despite everything, the Republican Party's playbook still revolves around calling the Democratic platform, Democrats themselves, and even their professions as weak, cowardly, effete, tame, and impotent. No matter that the Republican party INCREASED the size of government in the last eight years, increased spending, increased the deficit, distracted the entire globe with its ill-designed version of a terror war (terror war was necessary, but not this one), has tried to use wedge issues like same-sex marriage and abortion to divide the country.

You didn't hear a lick of the Republican-esque vitriol at the Democratic convention. Almost everyone who spoke went out of their way to honor McCain's service to the country. In 2004, Republicans refuted, avoided, and even dispatched deep-pocketed thugs to discredit John Kerry's service to the country. Republicans have not put "country first" in years, and they're certainly not doing it this year. John McCain's address Thursday night was the most disingenuous, dishonest, misleading 45 minutes I have seen during this election cycle.

Sarah Palin's address, on the other hand was the most honest, accurate depiction of the state of the Republican Party I had seen in years: angry, bitter, vitriolic, sarcastic, dismissive. The only disingenuous aspect of that address was its "toughness": her speech was, in fact, weak, cowardly, effete, tame, and impotent because it simply set out to impose a false sense of impending doom, and to rattle the GOP base by puffing themselves up while putting down more than half the country.